IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT \ THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.965 and 966 of 2024 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.965 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the C.R.P., by setting aside the order dt.19-03-2024 passed in I.A.No.166 of 2023 in O.S.No.294 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District. Between: 1. Bellamkonda Nageswara Rao @ Nagaiah, S/o Late Subba Rao, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Dronadula Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Bellamkonda Janaki Ramaiah, S/o Late Subba Rao, Aged about 61 Years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o Dronadula Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs AND 1. Pentyala Hanumayamma, (Died) 2. Maguluri Maruthi, W/o Choudaraiah, Aged about 43 years, Occ: House wife, R/o Dronadula Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 294 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the above C.R.P. lA No.2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay granted on 09-05-2024 in C.R.P.No.965 of 2024 lastly it was extended on 22-07-2024 for a period of Four (04) weeks. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondents: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.966 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the C.R.P., by setting aside the order dt.19-03-2024 passed in I.A.No.167 of 2023 in O.S.No.294 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki. Between: 1. Bellamkonda Nageswara Rao @ Nagaiah, S/o Late Subba Rao, Aged about 68 years, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. Dronadula Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Bellamkonda Janaki Ramaiah, S/o Late Subba Rao, Aged about 61 Years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o Dronadula Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitloners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs AND 1. Pentyala Hanumayamma, (Died) 2. Maguluri Maruthi, W/o Choudaraiah, Aged about 43 years, Occ: House wife, R/o Dronadula Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER APHC010205212024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 965/2024 Between: Bellamkonda Nageswara Rao @ Nagaiah and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Pentyala Hanumayamma(died) and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner{S): 1.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1. And CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 966/2024 Between: Bellamkonda Nageswara Rao @ Nagaiah and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Pentyala Hanumayamma (died) and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 BSB,J CRP Nos.965,966 of 2024 COMMON ORDER; C.R.P.No.965 of 2024 is filed having been aggrieved by the common order dated 19.03.2024 dismissing I.A.No.166 of 2023 in O.S.No.294 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. C.R.P.No.966 of 2024 is filed having been aggrieved by the common order dated 19.03.2024 dismissing I.A.No.167 of 2023 in O.S.No.294 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. I.A.No.166 of 2023 is filed by the plaintiffs under Order XVIII rule 17 of CPC and section 151 of CPC to recall the 2 petitioner/PWI. I.A.No.167 of 2023 is filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII rule 14(3) of CPC and section 151 of CPC to receive document ie., the original registered settlement deed dated 24.05.1967 bearing Doc.No.1687 of 1967 of SRO, Chilakaluripeta executed by Pentyala Ramadasu, son of Kotaiah in favour of Bellamkonda Subba Rao and two others. 2. nd 3. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is briefly as follows: The suit is filed for permanent injunction pleading that Pentyala Ramadasu was the original owner of the plaint schedule executed a registered settlement deed on property and 24.05.1967 in favour of Bellamkonda Subba Rao who is the father of the petitioners: that after the death of P.Ramadasu, the father of the petitioners and his brothers orally partitioned and the father of the petitioner got the plaint schedule property and some other 3 BSB,J CRP Nos.965,966 of 2024 property in the division; and that after the death of the father of the petitioners, they also got divided the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs adduced evidence of PW1 and Exs.M to A6. But, in the cross-examination of PW1, it was suggested that P.Ramadasu had not executed the registered settlement deed. Therefore, it is necessary to file the said document and for that purpose, it is necessary to recall PW1. The 1 respondent died. The 2 respondent filed counter opposing the petitioner stating that though the petitioners stated in their petition that they would file original settlement deed, they annexed a certified copy of the settlement deed, without stating as to why the original document was not filed. It is further contended that though it was mentioned in the written statement that P.Ramadasu had no right over the plaint schedule property and so the said settlement deed is nominal, sham and purposefully brought into existence, the plaintiffs did not choose to file the document and now, after lapse of long time after adducing the evidence of PW1, came up with these petitions to cover their lacuna. 4. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that there is no whisper about the said document in the plaint, though it was mentioned that it was recited in the plaint that Pentyala Ramadasu had executed a registered settlement deed on 24.05.1967 etc. It was further mentioned that a certified copy of the document was filed without stating anything about the original document and that secondary evidence would be 5. 4 BSB,J CRP Nos.965,966 of 2024 permitted only in case of well founded explanation offered as to what happened to the original document/primary evidence and therefore no purpose would be served even if the petition is allowed. Though a serious note was not taken, it was also mentioned that the petitioners failed to file a translated copy of the document. 6. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an apparent error in the order in saying that there was no reference in the plaint regarding the settlement deed, though it was mentioned in the same order about the plaint averments regarding the settlement deed. It is further submitted that the reasons for filing the secondary evidence would be satisfied at the time of filing the document in evidence, but for the purpose of granting leave to file the document, it is not necessary at this juncture. He further submitted that since it is a material documentary evidence and it was already pleaded in the plaint, but due to some mistake, it was not filed in the evidence, leave may be granted to the petitioners to file the document and for that purpose, PW1 may be recalled. 7. 8. At this juncture it is apt to mention the decision of the Supreme Court in Sugandhi (dead) by legal representatives & another Vs. P.RaJ Kumar represented by his power agent Imam oli\ it is held that “10. Coming to the present case, the defendants have filed an application assigning cogent reasons for not producing (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706 5 BSBJ CRP Nos.965,966 of 2024 the documents along with the written statement. They have stated that these documents were missing and were only traced at a later stage. It cannot be disputed that these documents are necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit. We are of the view that the courts below ought to have granted leave to produce these documents.” As rightly submitted in the arguments noted above, and Court must make every endeavour to get all the necessary evidence to decide a matter on merits, it is case fit to allow the petition. 9. In the result, the revision petitions are allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these revision petitions shall stand closed. 10. Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge (Junior Division), Addanki, Prakasam District. 2. One CC to Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies. gkk HIGH COURT DATED:25/02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.965 and 966 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS